Self-Efficacy and Foreign Language Education
Nicole Mills mills@fas.harvard.edu
National Middle East Language Resource Center
Brigham Young University
April 19, 2013


What is Self-Efficacy?

What does self-efficacy do?

Where does self-efficacy come from?

What are current areas of self-efficacy research?

Why would you assess self-efficacy in the foreign language classroom?

How do you assess self-efficacy?

What are the results of self-efficacy research in foreign language learning?

How does current self-efficacy research link to the teaching of less commonly taught languages?

How do I foster self-efficacy in the LCTL classroom?


Individuals possess a system of self-beliefs that enables them to exercise control over their thoughts, feelings, and actions


“People’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances”
(Bandura, 1997)


“What people think, believe, and feel affects how they behave” (Bandura, 1986)

Self-efficacy is often a better predictor of success than actual abilities

Beginning with Graham & Weiner’s review of motivational research in 1996, we have learned that students’ self-efficacy more consistently predicts academic performance over and above other motivational constructs

“They are able who think they are able”
– Virgil (ancient Roman poet)

“A man who doubts himself is like a man who would enlist in the ranks of his enemies and bear arms against himself. He makes failure certain by him being the first person convinced of it.”
– Alexandre Dumas (French author)

“Whether you think that you can or you can’t, you’re usually right.”
– Henry Ford (Founder, Ford Motor Company)

“If I have the belief that I can do it, I shall surely acquire the capacity to do it even if I may not have it at the beginning.”
– Mahatma Gandhi (activist)

“Clearly it is not simply a matter of how capable one is, but of how capable one believes oneself to be.”
– Frank Pajares (Former associate professor of educational psychology, Emory
University)






Influences pursued courses of action and decisions
Influences the degree of expended effort
Influences the level of perseverance and
resilience to adversity in the face of obstacles
Influences affective states
Influences the degree of success realized
-Bandura, 1997

Sources of Self-Efficacy:




Mastery Experiences
Vicarious Experiences
Emotional States
Social/ Verbal Persuasions
(Bandura, 1997)


Outcomes perceived as successful raise selfefficacy, those interpreted as failures lower selfefficacy

Individuals…



Engage in activities
Interpret the results of their actions
Develop beliefs about their capabilities to engage in subsequent tasks and activities


Observations of others

Effects of Modeling

If the model’s attributes are similar to their own
(ex: peers, etc.), the influence of the vicarious experience is strong


Emotions and Feelings experienced during task influence self-efficacy beliefs and performance

Negative thoughts/ Fears  often ensure inadequate performance


Feedback from others (teachers? Peers? Mentors?)

Positive persuasions  encourage & empower

Negative persuasions  defeat and weaken SE beliefs

Importance of appropriate, rigorous, and non-debilitating feedback










Career self-efficacy
Sports self-efficacy
Self-efficacy and diets
Self-efficacy and pain management
Parental self-efficacy
Self-efficacy and Depression
Gender gaps and Self-efficacy
Teacher Self-efficacy
Student Self-efficacy


Evaluate students’ perceived competence in the course objectives

Evaluate the influence of a new pedagogical approach on students’ selfefficacy (pre vs. post)

Evaluate the influence of pedagogical interventions (ex: workshops, etc.) on students’ or teachers’ self-efficacy

Evaluate the influence of teaching learning strategy techniques (ex:
reading strategies, etc.) on students’ self-efficacy

Longitudinal evaluation of self-efficacy beliefs (language requirement?)

Other reasons?

(quantitatively)

Creation of self-efficacy questionnaires:

The questions should be phrased in terms of “can do” as opposed to
“will do”

Questions should be linked to the outcome measure or the outcome objectives

“ How certain are you that you can…”
“Rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 0 to 100”
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cannot
Do at all
Moderately
Certain can do
Highly Certain can do

Student self-efficacy beliefs:

Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation to Motivation and Achievement (Mills, Pajares, & Herron, 2007)

A Re-evaluation of the Role of Anxiety: Self-efficacy, Anxiety, & their Relation to Reading & Listening Proficiency (Mills, Pajares, &Herron, 2006)

A Guide du Routard Simulation: Increasing Self-Efficacy in the Standards
through Project-based Learning (Mills, 2009)

Global Simulation and the Writing Self-beliefs of Intermediate French
Students (Mills & Péron, 2009)*

Longitudinal Perceptions of Efficacy and Value in the French Language
Requirement (Mills, November 2010) *

Learning strategies and self-efficacy:

Learner strategies and self-efficacy: Making the connection (Graham,
2007)

Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners (Graham,
& Macaro, 2008)
Teacher self-efficacy beliefs:



Teacher Self-efficacy of Graduate Teaching Assistants of French (native vs. non-native) (Mills & Allen, 2007)
Teacher self-efficacy in literature of teaching assistants of French (Mills,
2011)*
Action Research: Bridging Theory and Practice (Mills, 2013)

Three Sample Research Studies:

Global Simulation and the Writing Self-beliefs of
Intermediate French Students (Mills & Péron, 2009)
(quantitative)

Longitudinal Perceptions of Efficacy and Value in the
French Language Requirement (Mills, 2010) * (quantitative)

Teaching assistants’ self-efficacy in teaching literature:
Sources, personal assessments, and consequences
(Mills, 2011)* (qualitative)

Mills & Péron, 2009
International Journal of
Applied Linguistics

(Mills & Péron, 2009)

Global Simulation: Students create a fictive yet culturally grounded world, assume the role of a self-developed
character, and collaborate with fellow community members
(Magnin, 1997)

“For this project , you will become the tenants of a Parisian building, located in the Montmartre quarter and you will write a book of your memoirs of the events in the building. As such, you are going to pretend to be a French or francophone person living in France. You will develop your own character
and tell the story of his/her life in the first person.” (- Mélanie Péron)


This study evaluated how global simulation influenced the
development of intermediate-French students’ writing self- beliefs (writing self-efficacy*)
“
Writing self-efficacy beliefs are defined as individuals’ judgments of their competence in writing , specifically their judgments of their ability to write different
writing tasks and of their possession of various writing skills”
- Pajares & Johnson

Participants include 134 students enrolled in an Intermediate French I global simulation curriculum

Writing self-efficacy evaluated at the beginning (PRE) and end of the semester (POST)


Composition Grading Criteria




Content
Grammar
Creativity
Expression

Organization

Directions: Please use the following scale to answer the following statements. Circle the number that best describes how sure you are that you
can perform each of the French writing skills below.
0 10 20 30 40 50
No chance
60 70___ 80_____90___100
Completely Certain
Content (sample items)
• Write in French about a variety of topics with precision and detail
• Describe personal experiences fully when writing in French
• Present arguments or points of view accurately and effectively when writing in French


Expression (sample items): How sure are you that you can…
• Write in French with fluency and ease of expression
• Write in French with a variety and complexity of structures
• Vary sentence lengths and patterns when writing in French
• Write in French using a wide range of vocabulary


Grammar (sample items): How sure are you that you can…
• Write in French with a good control of a full range of grammatical structures
• Make few conjugation errors when writing in French
• Make few agreement errors when writing in French
• Make few verb tense errors when writing in French
• Make few errors in spelling when writing in French
• Make few grammatical errors when writing in French


Organization (sample items) : How sure are you that you can…
• Write in French with an underlying logical organization
• Write with a clear sense of beginning and closure
• Accurately and effectively use transitions when writing in French

Creativity (sample items) : How sure are you that you can…
• Write in French with creativity.
• Interest and engage the reader when writing in French

RESULTS:
Significant differences were found in Intermediate French students’ writing selfefficacy in grammar, content, creativity, expression, and organization
(pre  post)
Table . Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs Before and After Global Simulation
_________________________________________________________
Scale Pretest Mean Posttest Mean






Writing self-efficacy (WSE) 59.6
WSE Creativity 61.4
WSE Organization 63.7
WSE Grammar 56.6
73.5
78.2
78.3
68.8
WSE Content
WSE Expression
62.2
57.3
76.1
70.9
___________________________________________________________

IMPLICATIONS: Why might global simulation enhance students’ self-efficacy to write creatively?

Creative nature of writing assignments

Choice of topics to motivate students and promote exploration (Campbell, 1998;
Walker 2003)

Liberation from own identity – exploration of a new, altered, or desired self

IMPLICATIONS: Why might global simulation enhance students’ self-efficacy to write in an organized manner?
Consistent writing practice & instructors’ guiding comments on students’ first drafts

Writing workshops

IMPLICATIONS: Why might global simulation enhance students’ self-efficacy to write with grammatical accuracy?

Independent exploration of grammar websites & resources for personal grammar questions

Grading rubrics focused on grammatical precision in first drafts (conjugations

Process-oriented writing

IMPLICATIONS: Why might global simulation enhance students’ self-efficacy to appropriately communicate content?

Collective writing process

Personal investment in character’s identity

Progressive development of the complexity of the character throughout the global simulation experience

Choice of topics that attempt to “hook students” (Campbell, 1998; Walker,
2003)

Learners are provided with choice (Walker, 2003)

IMPLICATIONS: Why might global simulation enhance
students’ self-efficacy to write with enhanced expression?

Liberation from elementary-level writing (simple sentence structures, simple ideas, etc.)

Capacity to express themselves in French writing in similar ways as they do when writing in English

Grading procedure which encourages development of expression

Use of textual references as models

Ability to write their persona into the text

Mills, November 2010
ACTFL

Longitudinal Perceptions of Efficacy and Value in the
French Language Requirement
Longitudinal Evaluation of students’ perceived efficacy in relation to the Standards of Foreign Language learning
1.
Is there a change in French students’ self-efficacy to C ommunicate
French from the beginning to the end of the language requirement? in
2.
3.
4.
5.
Is there a change in French students’ self-efficacy in their understanding
of the practices, perspectives and products of the French Culture ?
Is there a change in French students’ self-efficacy to make between French and other disciplines?
Connections
Is there a change in French students’ self-efficacy to understand the
French language and culture through Comparisons to their own language and culture?
Is there a change in French students’ self-efficacy to participate in francophone Communities at home and around the world?

Longitudinal Perceptions of Efficacy and Value in the
French Language Requirement

Approximately 130 students participating in one of the two sequences (Fall 2007-Spring 2009):
Sequence A:
Beginning French I  Beginning French II  Intermediate I  Intermediate II
Sequence B:
French for False Beginners  Intermediate French I  Intermediate French II

Sample Self-efficacy Items: Standards of FL Learning

On a scale from 0 (no chance) to 100 (completely certain), how sure are
you that you can perform each of the tasks below with reasonable
grammatical accuracy, fluency, and ease? Remember that you may use any number between 0 and 100 .
50 0 10 20
No 20%
30 40
40%
Chance Certain Certain
60 70 80 90 100
60% 80% 100%
Certain Certain Certain
Communication: Interpersonal ( Sample items)
• I can introduce someone and use basic greetings and leave-taking expressions (Oral)
• I can actively participate in a debate (Oral)
• I can participate in extended written chat conversations. (Writing)
• I can express needs in written form. (Writing)

Sample Self-efficacy Items: Standards of FL Learning
Communication: Interpretive (Sample items)

I can understand the main points in short newspaper articles about current and familiar topics. (reading)

I can understand literary texts with a basic vocabulary and a simple straightforward plot. (reading)

I can understand the details of most TV shows (listening)

I can understand the main ideas of a short documentary (listening)


Communication: Presentational (Sample items)

I can write a review of a short film (writing)

I can write an analytical essay (writing)

I can present rehearsed skits. (oral)

I can give prepared presentations about a cultural topic. (oral)

Sample Self-efficacy Items: Standards of FL Learning

Culture: Products, Practices, Perspectives (sample items)

I am familiar with the role of contemporary figures in the French/ francophone culture. (Perspectives)

I can describe customs and traditions of the target culture. (practices)

I can recognize important monuments and symbols of French and francophone culture. (products)

Sample Self-efficacy Items: Standards of FL Learning

Connections (sample items)

I can relate content from other subject areas (history, politics, economics, literature) to topics discussed in French class.

I can discuss how members of the French/francophone culture view the
United States.

Comparisons (sample items)

I can compare and contrast social conventions of the target culture with those of my own culture.

I can analyze and explain local, regional, and national differences in the countries where French is spoken and compare it to my own country.

Longitudinal Perceptions of Efficacy and Value in the
French Language Requirement






Self-Efficacy Beliefs Before and After Beginning French I
____________________________________________________________________
Scale Pretest Mean Posttest Mean
Self-efficacy: Communication

Interpersonal Oral





Interpersonal Writing
Presentation Speaking
Presentation Writing
Interpretive Listening
Interpretive Reading
Self-efficacy: Culture


Products
Practices

Perspectives
Self-efficacy: Communities
Self-efficacy: Comparisons
9.9
9.9
11.9
27.6
23.8
10.9
4.1
9.8
4.2
7.2
11.5
63.6
59.4
62.7
50.0
54.2
69.1
46.2
49.3
38.0
58.8
49.7
Self-efficacy: Connections 50.0
66.0
______________________________________________________________________

Self-Efficacy in Communication
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Pre-Fr110 Post-
Fr110
Pre-Fr120 Post-
Fr120
Pre-Fr130 Post-
Fr130
Pre-Fr140 Post-
Fr140
Change French 110 to French 140: +54.6
Statistically Significant change: Fr110, Fr120, Fr130, sequence
SE in Communication

Self-Efficacy in Communication

Self-Efficacy in Communication means at the end of the language requirement:


Interpersonal mode in writing: 81.1*
Interpersonal mode in speaking: 79.3




Interpretive mode in reading: 78.7
Presentational mode in writing: 77.3
Presentational mode in speaking: 70.1
Interpretive mode in Listening: 67.2

Self-Efficacy in Culture
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Pre-
Fr110
Post-
Fr110
Pre-
Fr120
Post-
Fr120
Pre-
Fr130
Post-
Fr130
Pre-
Fr140
Post-
Fr140
Change French 110 to French 140: +56.8
Statistically Significant change: Fr110, Fr120, Fr130, Fr140, sequence
SE in Culture

Self-Efficacy in Culture

Similar trends in increased perceived competence from the beginning to the end of the language requirement in the:


 cultural practices (mean change= 40.2 points) cultural products (mean change =37.2 points) cultural perspectives (mean change =35.4 points)

Self-Efficacy in Culture means at the end of the language requirement:



Cultural practices: 83.1
Cultural products: 80.1
Cultural perspectives: 70.9*

Self-Efficacy in Connections
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Pre-
Fr110
Post-
Fr110
Pre-
Fr120
Post-
Fr120
Pre-
Fr130
Post-
Fr130
Pre-
Fr140
Post-
Fr140
SE in Connections
Change French 110 to French 140: +58.9
Statistically Significant change: Fr110, Fr120, Fr130, Fr140, sequence

Self-Efficacy in Comparisons
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Pre-
Fr110
Post-
Fr110
Pre-
Fr120
Post-
Fr120
Pre-
Fr130
Post-
Fr130
Pre-
Fr140
Post-
Fr140
SE in Comparisons
Change French 110 to French 140: +53.3
Statistically Significant change: Fr110, Fr120, Fr130, sequence

Self-Efficacy in Communities
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Pre-
Fr110
Post-
Fr110
Pre-
Fr120
Post-
Fr120
Pre-
Fr130
Post-
Fr130
Pre-
Fr140
Post-
Fr140
SE in Communities
Change French 110 to French 140: +54.9
Statistically Significant change: Fr110, Fr120, Fr130, sequence

Exploratory Analyses: Self-Efficacy

Same Exploratory Analyses conducted for Self-efficacy (SE)
Standard
SE in Culture*
Mean change for Men Mean Change for
Women
27.3 points 48.3 points
SE in Connections* 13.6 points 40.8 points
SE in Comparisons* 8.7 points 42.0 points
SE in Communities * 10.2 points 37.8 points
*Significant Differences by gender.
**No calculated significant differences by gender in SE in Communication

Targeting course objectives: Example of French 121
(French for False beginners
)
Particular course objectives were separated and
evaluated independently to determine whether students perceive a greater sense of competence in their ability to perform these functions or tasks from the beginning to the end of French 121.


Despite gains made in cultural understanding (mean increase= +24.4), the students did not perceive themselves as competent in cultural understanding
(mean=64.8) as in communication (mean=79.0).


At the end of French 121, students felt most confident in the following Culture items:
“I can provide information about French lodging and housing” (cultural products)

“I can provide information about French/ francophone cuisine.” (cultural products)

“I can research, plan, and participate in a cultural event” (cultural practices)

“I can identify patterns of behavior typically associated with the culture such as eating and shopping customs, leisure activities, and national holidays” (cultural practices)

“I can participate in real or simulated cultural events (i.e., family activities and holiday celebrations. (cultural practices)”

Exploratory

At the end of French 121, students felt least confident in the following
Culture items (all associated with cultural perspectives) :

“I can recognize how practices and products (politics, art, architecture, music and literature) reflect the viewpoints of people in French-speaking countries”

“I am familiar with the role of contemporary and historical events in French / francophone culture”

“I am familiar with the role of historical people in the French / francophone culture.”

“I am familiar with the role of contemporary figures in the French/ francophone culture.”

Exploratory Analyses Conclusions

Curricular Revisions?

Greater emphasis on culture?

Greater emphasis on cultural perspectives?

Inclusion of objectives within syllabus linked to cultural understanding and cultural perspectives?

Future Applications
“How can departments know if their students attain [learning] outcomes, and to what extent?”
- Byrnes (2006), The Outcomes of Collegiate Foreign Language Programs: Specifications,
Assessment, Evaluation

Results from questionnaires and item analyses can be evaluated by course
coordinators and Director of language programs

Questionnaires used for this project may be easily adapted and used by other languages (Arabic, Persian, etc.)

Information about students’ perceived levels of competence and value in the Standards of Foreign Language Learning may provide valuable information and maintain the importance of the language requirement to future students, the Department , and the Administration

Mills, 2011
Modern Language Journal

refer to teachers’ judgments of their capabilities to bring about desired outcomes related to student learning and engagement

Do TAs believe there is a two-tiered system? How does it influence the professionalization and socialization of graduate students?

Do they perceive literary study and instruction as distinctly different from language pedagogy ? (Byrnes, 2001)

How do TAs perceive themselves as teachers of literature?

How do they perceive their competency as “language” versus “literature” instructors?

What are the sources and consequences of their beliefs?

The Cyclical Nature of Teacher Efficacy, from Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy (1998)

Participants

Semi-structured Interview based on Teacher self-efficacy model and completion of teacher self-efficacy in literature Likert scale questionnaire

10 participants enrolled in doctoral program in French literature

1 native speaker/ 9 non-native speakers


One 2 nd year participant
Four 3 rd year participants


Three 4 th year participants
Two 5 th year participants

Sources of Teacher Self-Efficacy in Literature

How do you know how to teach literature?
Observations of literature professors 8 comments
- observation of model professors 3 comments
- observation of anti-models 5 comments
Knowledge of language pedagogy only 4 comments
Trial and Error 3 comments
Experience as a literature student 2 comments
Common Sense 1 comment

Mastery Experiences

Have you had successful experiences teaching literature?
Have taught texts in language classes but not “Literature” 8 comments
Taught texts at the intermediate level 8 comments
- focus only on comprehension 5 comments
- do not focus on analysis 3 comments
No opportunity to teach literature 5 comments
Experience teaching literature at high school level or as a TA 4 comments
Taught texts at the elementary level 2 comments

Verbal Persuasions

Have you received feedback from others about your teaching of literature?
No 5 comments
- only for teaching “language” 5 comments
Very little 3 comments
- praise from teacher that he/she TA’d for 1 comment
- praise from students (as TA) 1 comment
- feedback when giving presentations as graduate student 1 comment
Yes 2 comments

Vicarious Experiences

Are you influenced by other professors in your teaching of literature?

Yes 10 comments
- observation of class structure 7 comments
- observation of balancing discussion/ participation 5 comments
- observation of instructor errors/ ineffective practices 3 comments
- observation of content presentation 2 comments
- observation of formulation of guiding questions 2 comments
- observation of what causes student anxiety 2 comments
- observation of teacher’s feedback 2 comments
- observation of teacher enthusiasm 1 comments

Emotional Indicators

How do you feel while you’re teaching literature?
Unsure 7 comments
- Project that in the future it will feel great 7 comments
- depends on literature content 1 comment
- minimal experience 1 comment
- anxiety for future position/ job 1 comment
- anxiety for the job market 1 comment
Happy/ Energized 3 comments
Less confident 2 comments
- unaware of strategies for teaching literature 1 comment
- minimal experience teaching literature 1 comment
Satisfied 2 comment
Competent 1 comment

Emotional Indicators
“It’s hard to say just because I’ve had a lot more experience with the language side, so I have a lot more data points, you know, in my memory. In terms of how I feel about teaching literature versus language, I think that I
would feel a lot less secure… but, you know, in reality, I think all of the graduate students just kind of feel like,
“How are we…?” You know, we’ll do it because you always overcome your difficulties…”

Analysis of Teaching Task

How well do you feel that you teach literature?
Less confident in ability to teach literature 6 comments
- no knowledge of explicit models/ methods 3 comments
- no experience 4 comments
- no feedback 1 comment
- based only on observation of other literature instructors 1 comment
- no direct line between language and literature teaching 1 comment
Projects future competence to teach literature 4 comments
- passion for literature 3 comments
- knowledge of language pedagogy may transfer to literature instruction 2 comments
- will gain confidence with practice/ experience 1 comment

Analysis of Teaching Task
“I feel that I gain an important skill set
[in my teaching of lower level courses] but it’s…there’s just…it’s not a direct line from teaching language to
teaching literature.”

Analysis of Teaching Context

How can we address support issues within French literature doctoral programs?
Provide graduate students with experience teaching literature courses 8 comments
Experience as a TA for an undergraduate literature course 3 comments
Coordinator observation during literature lesson at lower levels 2 comments
Inclusion of more literature at the elementary/ intermediate level 2 comments
Course in the Teaching of Literature 1 comment
Increase presentations in graduate coursework 1 comment
Increased lit faculty involvement in development as a literature instructor 1 comment
Increased feedback from literature faculty on literature syllabus development 1 comment
Opportunity to teach a lesson in a graduate course in area of specialization 1 comment
Focus half of the pedagogy course on the teaching of literature 1 comment

Consequences of Teacher self-efficacy
Would you implement innovative or experimental strategies in literature instruction?
Definitely/ Absolutely 9 comments
Which innovative strategies?
Unsure/ Unaware of innovative strategies 9 comments

Discussion

TAs possessed a moderate level of TSE in literature (6.8/9)

TAs professed that 3 of the 4 sources of teacher self-efficacy were not fostered

TAs felt more confident teaching elementary and intermediate-level
language courses than advanced level literature courses

Expressed that graduate program was highly effective in its formation of literary scholars and language instructors but literature instruction is perceived as “a gap between these two holes”

Discussion

Shulman (1987) claims that effective instruction requires that teachers possess:
 pedagogical knowledge

 content knowledge pedagogical content knowledge**

The TAs appear to possess valuable pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge but …a (perceived) missing pedagogical knowledge component?

Ideas for Self-efficacy research within the LCTL context

LCTL classes typically consist of 1) heritage learners , 2) non heritage language learners, and 3) “students with heritage language
motivation” (little or no fluency in the heritage language, but cultural background) (Van
Deusen-Scholl, 2003).

How do the self-efficacy beliefs of these three groups differ in the areas of Communication, Culture, Connections, Communities, and
Comparisons (Standards of FL learning)?

What are the self-efficacy beliefs of heritage versus non-heritage language learners in their capabilities to use standard versus non-standardized
varieties of a language?

How does the instructor’s choice of standard versus non-standardized
varieties of a language influence students’ self-efficacy beliefs? ( Bergman,
2010; Al-Batal & Belnap, 2006)

Ideas for Self-efficacy research within the LCTL context

“Learning about culture has been identified as a key motivating factor for [LCTL] students” (Stenson et al, 1998, p. 7).


What are LCTL students’ self-efficacy beliefs in cultural understanding of products, practices, and perspectives in a given curriculum?
What are LCTL teacher self-efficacy beliefs in their ability to effectively teach cultural products, practices, and perspectives?

Students study LCTLs for both humanistic reasons (personal
enjoyment and interest) and utilitarian interests (improving career
prospects) (Murphy, Magnan, Back & Garrett-Rucks, 2009).


How do the self-efficacy beliefs of these two groups differ? How are they similar?
Do our curricular plans meet their needs?

Ideas for Self-efficacy research within the LCTL context

Freedman (2004) noted that language enrollment in LCTL courses is steady at the first and second year level, but drops off at higher levels of study

How do the students’ self-efficacy beliefs evolve from the beginning of the first year to the end of the second year?

What would student interviews tell us about their perceived competence and their beliefs about the perceived value of learning a LCTL at the
advanced level?

What do students deem important and valuable and how could this be integrated into LCTL advanced level courses?

Ideas for Self-efficacy research within the LCTL context

Wang (2009) discusses a need for increased solidarity, availability
of updated teaching materials, and collaboration among LCTL instructors.

Do teacher self-efficacy beliefs evolve and develop from the beginning to the end of a teacher training workshop or course (ex: STARTALK)? Why or why not?

What are the teacher self-efficacy beliefs of LCTL instructors as they relate to the development of teaching materials that align with current communicative, post-communicative and literacy based teaching methodologies ?

What is the collective efficacy of LCTL instructors?

Ideas for Self-efficacy research within the LCTL context

Haley & Ferro (2011) suggest that US language teacher programs are typically geared toward instruction of commonly taught languages and emphasize constructivist paradigms.

How does these teacher training programs influence the teacher selfefficacy beliefs of LCTL instructors from a different cultural background with different educational paradigms?

What are the teacher self-efficacy beliefs of LCTL versus commonly taught language instructors enrolled in US teacher education programs?
Where and how do they differ? How could US teacher education programs revise program curricula accordingly?






Foster self-directedness and pro-activity among students
Allow students to exercise control of their own learning
Allow students to problem-solve (inductive learning vs. deductive learning)
Encourage students to set goals
Creation of a collaborative classroom – shared knowledge and decision making
(John Barrell, “Working toward student self-direction and personal efficacy as educational goals”)


Instructors could provide multiple opportunities for students
to experience success in the FL classroom.

Teacher guided activities and appropriate scaffolding
 prepare students to be successful

Provide students with multiple opportunities to exchange information, discuss opinions, and present ideas with their peers in partners before large group discussion

Teachers’ in-class presentation and modelling of effective language learning strategies


Teacher in-class presentation and modeling


Model in-class speaking activities
Model texts or essays (written by native speakers, written by successful former students, etc.)

Student observation of linguistically proficient peers

Inspire and enhance students’ perception of their potential



Students who have studied abroad or at the advanced level
Models of former student work (essays, final projects, videos, etc.)
Collaborative learning experiences (blogs, presentations, discussion boards) to provide learners with opportunities to observe the successes of their peers at similar proficiency levels.


Teachers’ appropriate verbal feedback and encouragement

“the teacher’s challenge is to ensure that their students’ internal standards are…

 rigorous without being debilitating realistic without being self-limiting

 fluid without being wishy washy
consistent without being static…” – Pajares, 2002


What causes anxiety according to FL students?






Non-Comprehension
Excessive error correction
Fear of peer/ teacher evaluation
Speed of the course
“intimidating” teachers
Comparison to native speaker performance

Renée von Wörde “Students’ Perspectives on Foreign Language Anxiety” from Inquiry, Volume 8, Number 1, Spring 2003


How do I create a low-anxiety classroom environment?

Development of a sense of community (communality or connectedness among students & teacher)

“personal relationship” with the teacher

Teacher’s attitude toward the language

Teachers who “make the class fun to like learning” or “make the class more animated” or “teachers who make it interesting by using interesting situations” grounded in engaging cultural content

Renée von Wörde “Students’ Perspectives on Foreign Language Anxiety” from
Inquiry, Volume 8, Number 1, Spring 2003 / Mills, 2013


How do I create a low-anxiety classroom environment?

Teacher repetition/ reinforcement

Teachers’ use of appealing and relevant topics
 learner-centred curricula which allow students to become active decision-makers and engage with a wide network of available resources both inside and outside the classroom
 freedom, choice, and experimentation
Renée von Wörde “Students’ Perspectives on Foreign Language Anxiety” from Inquiry, Volume 8, Number 1, Spring 2003 / Mills, 2013


Fostering the sources of self-efficacy help to establish a
community of learners and classroom dynamic in which learners create a shared sense of collective efficacy, or shared belief in the class community’s ability to complete foreign language tasks and communicate effectively in the target language.

Fostering, enhancing, and assessing self-efficacy …. Yes, we can! Yes, you can!


Reference list available online
Upcoming chapter that could be a good future resource:
Mills, N. A. (accepted, under review) Self-efficacy in Second Language Acquisition. In Eds. M.
Williams & S. Mercer, Multiple Perspectives on the Self . Multilingual Matters.

Email: mills@fas.harvard.edu
 http://works.bepress.com/nicole_mills/

Thank you!